Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2018, 05:29:59 AM »
Just wanted to say Thanks to Tom for the taking his time to reply. I might be a globetard, but I really do try to remain unbiased. I enjoy looking at both sides, not to argue but to understand. Im 99% certain the earth is a sphere. But I was also 99% sure my first marriage would last so... ;)

I did read a biography on Einstein a few years ago, if i remember the name Ill come back an edit.

While the Video has a fake arguement for comedy sake, its not to far from the truth. These were the basic thoughts he was wrestling with. In the very beginning of his Gravity problem he did have thoughts on a flat earth. But he was certain the earth was spherical and you cannot have all sides of a sphere accelerating outwards. But a "flat earth w/ universal accelerator" thought kinda was in his head.

BUT, you cant say "Einstein said the Earth is accelerating upwards so the earth has to be flat." Thats a little bit of a cut and paste job out of context.
You either believe Einstein or your dont. :)

Im pretty sure until everyone saw their first Globe had the thought the earth is flat. Never stop asking question, people have been wrong about all kinds of stuff.
But dont go down the rabbit hole to far, be willing to listen to both sides with an open mind.


Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.

Perception is a guess or estimate of what is 'out there' depending on how we read the clues; therefore it can never be absolute and often is unreliable.

*

Online RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2018, 08:16:09 PM »
Maybe I'm missing something here.  I do understand how a constant acceleration of 9.81 meters/s/s could make me not like what I see on the scale.  Yes, I believe that gravity is kind of 'spooky' and why Einstein had a lot of problems with it.  When I was in school we were always taught that acceleration was a vector.  You have the magnitude correct, but what about the direction?  If a direction could be determined maybe you could verify using other celestial bodies that the earth is indeed speeding up and heading off in some direction at a constant rate of acceleration.  The other big problem is that my 'back of the envelope' calculations reveled that if the earth started at 0 speed, relative to what, I don't know, and then started a constant acceleration to make us all stay on this earth, we would reach the speed of light in about 1 year.  Of course if you choose to believe Einstein, as you get closer and closer to the speed of light, the amount of energy to keep the constant mass in constant acceleration would rapidly increase towards infinity.  It looks to me like you need some other theory of attraction other than a constant acceleration.  The theory will 'crash and burn' eventually unless you can change the speed of light.   
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2018, 06:45:03 AM »
The interesting thing about FE Theory is that science is largely dismissed and the whole scientific method rubbished, but here and there where it suits them they cherry pick parts of scientific theory where it suits them. Relativity is a good example. All the stuff about gravity is dismissed because gravity doesn't exist, but the bit about things not being able to accelerate past the speed of light is happily accepted because it suits them.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2018, 05:23:13 PM »
Einstein didn't invent the idea of relative motion.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2018, 05:42:41 PM »
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2018, 02:21:52 AM »
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.

The real crime is the position of appealing to authority and accepting everything you are told.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2018, 12:40:15 PM »
That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence.
Rubbish. You dismiss things when they don't fit your agenda and cherry pick things which do.
Your definition of whether there is "enough empirical evidence" is whether it fits in with what you believe.

Quote
The real crime is the position of appealing to authority and accepting everything you are told.
A reasonable point, but a strange one coming from someone who regularly appeals to Rowbotham's authority (ironic, as he has none) and accepts everything he tells you. A prime example - I pick this because it's been so much discussed here - is his assertion that the horizon always rises to eye level. Bobby has shown very clearly that it doesn't but you continue to blindly accept Rowbotham's pontification about this and resuse to do any tests - note, looking at the horizon and thinking "looks about eye level" is not a valid test of this when the dip angle is so small.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2018, 03:23:46 PM »
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.
Tom, are you forgetting about gravitational lensing?  That was literally one of the first experimental tests of GR and bendy space-time.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2018, 02:17:16 AM »
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.

The real crime is the position of appealing to authority and accepting everything you are told.
No, because Einstein never "showed gravity to be a 'bending of space' " but:
Quote
In Einstein’s view of the world, gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects.
From: Understanding gravity—warps and ripples in space and time
And there is a huge and highly significant difference between "a 'bending of space' " and "the curvature of spacetime".

Therefore there are "no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space' " but there are experiments which show gravitation to result from a curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects".

The following is long but might be worth reading.

Spacetime can be thought of as having both spacelike and timelike components.
When spacetime is curved by a massive object like the earth both the spacelike and timelike components are curved but only infinitesmally.
And it is the curvature of the timelike component that is the only significant cause of gravitation near earth or even the sun.
To simplify writing this I will just use Space in lieu of the spacelike component and Time in lieu of the timelike component in the following.

Objects are usually moving through both Space and Time and to compare these, compatible units must be used.
In cosmology, these units might be distance in Space in lightyears and Time in years but for local objects, Space in lightseconds and Time in seconds is more natural.

Now just as an example an object supported above the earth might be considered
      stationary in Space (or travelling at 0 lightseconds/second) relative to the earth but is travelling in Time at seconds/second).
The mass of the earth curves spacetime towards the earth so an unconstrained object (one in free-fall) would follow this trajectory  (known as a geodesic) and fall to earth.
But the constrained object requires a force to prevent it from following its natural trajectory in spacetime - an inertial pseudo-force.

The curvature in spacetime near the earth in so small as to be virtually undetectable - an effective change in the diameter of earth of only about 4 mm and 1 m for the sun (if I'm not mistaken).

Now as to "experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of spacetime'."
Till recently little more could be said other than that all observations have been "consistent with GR" but recent numerical results have provided more direct evidence.
These all are to do with cosmology because for ordinary calculations within the solar system Newton's Laws are extraordinarily accurate.
See this quote from Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity by John D. Norton
Quote
One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions. For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. The sentence highlighted in red says:

"However it turns out the this tensor does not reduce to the [Newtonian expression] Δφ in the case of infinitely weak, static gravitational fields."

But as to the topic "Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator", that involves accepting just a little step on "Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity" and denying everything else he developed from that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2018, 04:34:36 PM »
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.
Tom, are you forgetting about gravitational lensing?  That was literally one of the first experimental tests of GR and bendy space-time.

Professor Charles Lane Poor says that there are other causes for the "lensing" that is seen that have nothing to do with curving space or "gravity". Also see his other papers on the matter.

In fact, this phenomenon was known about long before Einstein came up with GR.

Quote from: rabinoz
Therefore there are "no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space' " but there are experiments which show gravitation to result from a curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects".

Quantum Mechanics proposes an entirely different mechanism for gravity where space-time does not bend or curve. The last time I checked there was no Grand Unification Theory or verification of the curving space theory. Please provide a link to the Nobel prize winner so that we may congratulate him or her. Thank you.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 04:54:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2018, 05:10:07 PM »
I can understand why an acceleration of the flat earth (in some unspecified vector direction) would hold all of us on the ground.  The flat earth theories also seem to require a firmament (dome) to keep the sea water and air from falling off the edge.  Additionally, the Sun and Moon are inside the dome and rotate at a certain rate to match what is seen by humans on the surface of the earth.  Now the big question is what keeps the moon (a sphere of 32 miles) at 3000 miles above the earth's surface in place?  I suppose that there could be a cable that holds the moon to the top of the dome but no one has mentioned that.   You can also see a lot of surface damage (craters) on the moon.  I was always told that they were produced by the collisions of asteroids.  Did these asteroids come thru the dome or was the moon made that way (by unspecified beings) before it was suspended inside the dome?       
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2018, 05:47:09 PM »
I can understand why an acceleration of the flat earth (in some unspecified vector direction) would hold all of us on the ground.  The flat earth theories also seem to require a firmament (dome) to keep the sea water and air from falling off the edge.  Additionally, the Sun and Moon are inside the dome and rotate at a certain rate to match what is seen by humans on the surface of the earth.  Now the big question is what keeps the moon (a sphere of 32 miles) at 3000 miles above the earth's surface in place?  I suppose that there could be a cable that holds the moon to the top of the dome but no one has mentioned that.   You can also see a lot of surface damage (craters) on the moon.  I was always told that they were produced by the collisions of asteroids.  Did these asteroids come thru the dome or was the moon made that way (by unspecified beings) before it was suspended inside the dome?     
The big question is whether UA is action at a distance, or at a point. If the former, this explains why the moon is accelerating upwards as well as the earth, but does not explain why the action does not also affect humans, buildings, things in coal mines etc. If the latter, it is difficult to explain why the moon and the heavens do not come crashing down.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2018, 06:24:28 PM »
I can understand why an acceleration of the flat earth (in some unspecified vector direction) would hold all of us on the ground.  The flat earth theories also seem to require a firmament (dome) to keep the sea water and air from falling off the edge.  Additionally, the Sun and Moon are inside the dome and rotate at a certain rate to match what is seen by humans on the surface of the earth.  Now the big question is what keeps the moon (a sphere of 32 miles) at 3000 miles above the earth's surface in place?  I suppose that there could be a cable that holds the moon to the top of the dome but no one has mentioned that.   You can also see a lot of surface damage (craters) on the moon.  I was always told that they were produced by the collisions of asteroids.  Did these asteroids come thru the dome or was the moon made that way (by unspecified beings) before it was suspended inside the dome?     
The big question is whether UA is action at a distance, or at a point. If the former, this explains why the moon is accelerating upwards as well as the earth, but does not explain why the action does not also affect humans, buildings, things in coal mines etc. If the latter, it is difficult to explain why the moon and the heavens do not come crashing down.

The way it's been explained to me is that UA is accelerating everything inside the Universe. The reason why terrestrial things (humans among them) don't fly upwards is that we are 'shielded' from below by earth itself. However, if the moon and sun and all other celestial objects are above the earth, then wouldn't they be shielded too? Then the question is, to your point, why haven't we accelerated upward and slammed into them? I guess that brings in the 'dome' argument, the moon and sun being beneath it. But it's my understanding that Saturn, for example, is above the dome. So why doesn't our dome slam into it? I haven't found an explanation for this. May have missed it though.

*

Online RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2018, 07:29:51 PM »
If there is a shielding argument then the old equation of F=MA will have to be modified.  There's no shielding variables in that equation.  If Newton's Second law is not defective then I would expect to find a suspension cable holding the moon up.  If the shielding variable is, indeed, viable then you could check that by putting a BB inside a basketball.  If the moon is inside the dome, then I would think that the surface of it would be protected.  You can see a lot of blemishes on the surface with your own eyes.  I've always been told they were made by the collisions from asteroids over millions of years.  Maybe the dome has been penetrated many times by those objects.  Maybe the moon was created with all the blemishes and is some kind of 'manufacturing defect'.  These are all interesting questions and keeps my brain churning. 
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2018, 03:12:46 AM »
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.
Tom, are you forgetting about gravitational lensing?  That was literally one of the first experimental tests of GR and bendy space-time.

Professor Charles Lane Poor says that there are other causes for the "lensing" that is seen that have nothing to do with curving space or "gravity". Also see his other papers on the matter.
OK, so you'd prefer to go with what Professor Charles Lane Poor wrote:
Quote from: Professor Charles Lane Poor
And my previous post contained:
for ordinary calculations within the solar system, Newton's Laws are extraordinarily accurate.
See this quote from Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity by John D. Norton
Quote
One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions. For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system.
Professor Charles Lane Poor is simply claiming that since Newton Law of Universal Gravitation is so much simpler, and it is, that it should be accepted over Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
But:
  • I believe that Professor Charles Lane Poor wrote that in 1924 - and there's been "a lot of water under the bridge since then".
  • Even Newtonian Gravitation predicts that massive objects will bend light, though only by half as much as Einstein's GR.
So can we say that if you don't agree with Einstein's GR that you do accept the Newtonian Law of Universal Gravitation, as Professor Charles Lane Poor does.
Otherwise, it seems quite inconsistent for you to appeal to an authority that you, yourself regard as in error.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
In fact, this phenomenon was known about long before Einstein came up with GR.
See above, "Newtonian Gravitation predicts that massive objects will bend light".

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: rabinoz
Therefore there are "no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space' " but there are experiments which show gravitation to result from a curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects".

Quantum Mechanics proposes an entirely different mechanism for gravity where space-time does not bend or curve.
Sure, "Quantum Mechanics proposes" with proposes being the important word but, other than near singularities (the centres of black holes) GR does work.
There is very active research into the validity of GR on the very small scale and to my knowledge no such limit has been determined yet - GR still works.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The last time I checked there was no Grand Unification Theory or verification of the curving space theory. Please provide a link to the Nobel prize winner so that we may congratulate him or her. Thank you.
There are not likely to be any Nobel prize winners in verifying GR but there is a certain Nobel prize for the first person to disprove GR.
Just as there is a certain Nobel prize for a Grand Unification Theory.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The last time I checked there was no . . . . .  verification of the curving space theory.
There is no "curving space theory" of gravitation! Please read my previous post. "Curved Space" only becomes significant near objects like neutron stars and black holes. "Space" curvature even near the sun is quite insignificant.
There is curvature of spacetime as in General Relativity and the curvature of the timelike component of spacetime is by far the most signigican in "our neck of the woods".

But as to the verification of General Relativity you might read:
Tests of General Relativity: A Review By Estelle Asmodelle May 4th, 2017
Some Comments on the Tests of General Relativity. M. Anyon and J. Dunning-Davie
Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real, Chad Orzel.



*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2018, 03:46:55 AM »
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.
Tom, are you forgetting about gravitational lensing?  That was literally one of the first experimental tests of GR and bendy space-time.

Professor Charles Lane Poor says that there are other causes for the "lensing" that is seen that have nothing to do with curving space or "gravity". Also see his other papers on the matter.
OK, so you'd prefer to go with what Professor Charles Lane Poor wrote:
Quote from: Professor Charles Lane Poor
And my previous post contained:
for ordinary calculations within the solar system, Newton's Laws are extraordinarily accurate.
See this quote from Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity by John D. Norton
Quote
One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions. For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system.
Professor Charles Lane Poor is simply claiming that since Newton Law of Universal Gravitation is so much simpler, and it is, that it should be accepted over Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
But:
  • I believe that Professor Charles Lane Poor wrote that in 1924 - and there's been "a lot of water under the bridge since then".
  • Even Newtonian Gravitation predicts that massive objects will bend light, though only by half as much as Einstein's GR.
So can we say that if you don't agree with Einstein's GR that you do accept the Newtonian Law of Universal Gravitation, as Professor Charles Lane Poor does.
Otherwise, it seems quite inconsistent for you to appeal to an authority that you, yourself regard as in error.

Read the article again. The bending of starlight around the sun is explained with neither Newtonian Gravity or Relativity.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2018, 06:00:12 AM »
Read the article again. The bending of starlight around the sun is explained with neither Newtonian Gravity or Relativity.
Do you mean "The bending of starlight around the sun is explained with either Newtonian Gravity or Relativity"?

Yes, Professor Charles Lane Poor ends with
Quote from: Ch. Lane Poor.
Thus the original, but now unquoted and apparently forgotten, paper of Einstein shows, directly and without the possibility of doubt, that his formula of planetary motion is based upon and involves the Newtonian law of inverse squares; shows that he derived his formula from that of Newton by a direct transformation in time units.
The so-called relativity rotation of planetary orbits is a mathematical illusion: an illusion due to an incomplete mathematical transformation and to an illogical interpretation of the resulting formula. The Newtonian law has not been abolished: there is no Einsteinian law of gravitation.

I'm not one to try to judge between the writings of the eminence of Professor Charles Lane Poor and Albert Einstein, I simply do not have that depth of knowledge, but:
  • Einstein unassamedly did "base" his Theory of General Relativity on not only Newton's gravitation but on all of Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
    He did that simply because he recognised that for ordinary calculations within the solar system, Newton's Laws are extraordinarily accurate.
    See this quote from Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity by John D. Norton
    Quote
    One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions. For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system.

  • Professor Charles Lane Poor's papers were written in the period up to 1930 and much of the verication of Einstein's GR needed far more precise measurements than were possible them.
    The earliest of these were possibly the time dilation efects due to gravitation potential and velocity that are now so common place.

  • In the end it bothers me little whether it's Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation or Einstein's Theory of General Relativity because
    "for ordinary calculations within the solar system, Newton's Laws are extraordinarily accurate" and Newton's Laws are far easier to use in this application.
    So much so that even most orbital calculations are carried out using not GR but Newton's Laws with relativistic corrections added if necessary.

But I fail to see why you are so strongly supporting Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation because they alone make a finite flat earth quite impossible.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2018, 07:53:24 AM »
Again, my comment to you is to read the article to the very end. Poor does not describe the cause of the bending of starlight around the sun to be due to Newtonian Gravity or Relativity at all.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2018, 10:54:01 AM »
Again, my comment to you is to read the article to the very end. Poor does not describe the cause of the bending of starlight around the sun to be due to Newtonian Gravity or Relativity at all.
All I see is Professor Charles Lane Poor postulating an excuse for the observations made during those eclipses. He knows that the results far exceed that from simple Newtonian gravitation but still cannot accept that Einstein might be right.
Quote from: Professor Charles Lane Poor
In its passage from a distant star to the telescope in Australia or Mexico, the ray of light passes through the atmosphere of the sun, it passes through though the atmosphere of the earth.
In the former it may get bent, in the latter it certainly is bent out of its straight path. Everyone is familar with the effects of refraction.
Whenever a ray of light passes from one medium to another, from air to glass, or from air to water, it is bent out of its straight path. Upon this fact are constructed telescopes, risms, and eye-glasses.
Under ordinary conditions the amount of refraction suffered by very markedly with changes in the temperature of the air.
When, in an eclipse, the sun disappears behind the moon it ceases for the moment to warm the air, and the temperature of our atmosphere drops suddenly. With this change in temperature the amount of the refraction changes, and the star appears to change its position.
And no thermometer can record these sudden changes, no computation can take account of the abnormal and unknown changes in refraction caused by the eclipse shadow. 
Astronomers are very aware of the effect of refraction but I would suspect that any change in refraction due to his postulated temperature change would be all in a similar direction for all the stars and the sun's corona.

Nevertheless those early observations were "pushing the limits" of measurements back in the 1920s and while they were (and still are) claimed to "prove GR" that claim was a bit premature.

As I noted earlier "Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system" and measurement accuracy back there was not quite "up to the task" of a satisfying verification - a scientific theory might be verified but is never really regarded as being proven.

This is the way Wikipedia describes that issue:
Quote
Tests of general relativity, Deflection of light by the Sun
The early accuracy, however, was poor. The results were argued by some to have been plagued by systematic error and possibly confirmation bias, although modern reanalysis of the dataset suggests that Eddington's analysis was accurate. The measurement was repeated by a team from the Lick Observatory in the 1922 eclipse, with results that agreed with the 1919 results and has been repeated several times since, most notably in 1953 by Yerkes Observatory astronomers and in 1973 by a team from the University of Texas. Considerable uncertainty remained in these measurements for almost fifty years, until observations started being made at radio frequencies.
This paper lists 12 sets of data from 1919 to 1973, On the Gravitational Bending of Light—Was Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington Right? G. G. Nyambuya, W. Simango

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2018, 01:57:53 AM »
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.
Tom, are you forgetting about gravitational lensing?  That was literally one of the first experimental tests of GR and bendy space-time.

Professor Charles Lane Poor says that there are other causes for the "lensing" that is seen that have nothing to do with curving space or "gravity". Also see his other papers on the matter.

In fact, this phenomenon was known about long before Einstein came up with GR.

Quote from: rabinoz
Therefore there are "no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space' " but there are experiments which show gravitation to result from a curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects".

Quantum Mechanics proposes an entirely different mechanism for gravity where space-time does not bend or curve. The last time I checked there was no Grand Unification Theory or verification of the curving space theory. Please provide a link to the Nobel prize winner so that we may congratulate him or her. Thank you.

So there has been quite a bit of empirical evidence: gravitational lensing (which you deny), GPS signal corrections (these satellites use GR to pinpoint locations on Earth which would otherwise lack such precision), gravitational waves (which has been detected multiple times), observation of black holes (including merger events). Scientists have even demonstrated empirically time dilation using atomic clocks.

So the empirical evidence is there. I think you simply disagree with the interpretation. Your rebuttals seem to favor literature published in alternative journals from almost a hundred years ago. None of these ideas (at least none that you have referenced so far that I have read) were taken seriously by the scientific community and were quickly abandoned.

It is similar, if I may be so bold to draw an analogy, to Intelligent Design proponents. Since they are unable to publish in established scientific journals, they simply create their own alternative journals (with themselves as the peer reviewers). Then they get to claim their ideas are "peer-reviewed and published."

Are there any contemporary scientists investigating FE ideas and publishing those ideas in established journals? I honestly do not know.

Also, I am confused how you think quantum mechanics offers a different mechanism for gravity. Would you please elaborate on what this mechanism is? Thank you in advance!

I leave you with a quote from our favorite source:

"The theory of relativity is considered to be self-consistent, is consistent with many experimental results, and serves as the basis of many successful theories like quantum electrodynamics. Therefore, fundamental criticism (like that of Herbert Dingle, Louis Essen, Petr Beckmann, Maurice Allais and Tom van Flandern) has not been taken seriously by the scientific community, and due to the lack of quality of many critical publications (found in the process of peer review) they were rarely accepted for publication in reputable scientific journals. Just as in the 1920s, most critical works are published in small publications houses, alternative journals (like "Apeiron" or "Galilean Electrodynamics"), or private websites. Consequently, where criticism of relativity has been dealt with by the scientific community, it has mostly been in historical studies."
« Last Edit: October 30, 2018, 02:09:52 AM by QED »
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior